The Law Gay Couples Vs Christian bakers

Todman

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 7, 2004
6,433
4,244
AFL Club
Hawthorn
http://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/california-court-says-baker-can-refuse-wedding-cake-order-from-gay-couple

There are two legal proceedings in the US about two incidents that occurred in Colorado and California.

In both cases a gay couple requested a baker with strong religious beliefs to bake a wedding cake to celebrate their nuptials. The bakers refused on religious grounds and so the gay couples sued on discrimination grounds.



A court in Bakersfield California, ruled in a judgement on Monday (Feb 5) night that the shop owner was able to deny baking a cake specifically for a same-sex couple.

"No baker may place their wares in public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification," the ruling said.

But "the difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked."

The court said to make the baker "use her talents to design and create cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of marital union her religion forbids" would violate the US first amendment that protects free speech.

There is still some sanity in California .
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

General Giant

Hall of Famer
Apr 12, 2012
32,526
24,370
AFL Club
GWS
http://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/california-court-says-baker-can-refuse-wedding-cake-order-from-gay-couple

There are two legal proceedings in the US about two incidents that occurred in Colorado and California.

In both cases a gay couple requested a baker with strong religious beliefs to bake a wedding cake to celebrate their nuptials. The bakers refused on religious grounds and so the gay couples sued on discrimination grounds.



A court in Bakersfield California, ruled in a judgement on Monday (Feb 5) night that the shop owner was able to deny baking a cake specifically for a same-sex couple.

"No baker may place their wares in public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification," the ruling said.

But "the difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked."

The court said to make the baker "use her talents to design and create cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of marital union her religion forbids" would violate the US first amendment that protects free speech.

There is still some sanity in California .
Why do we have anti-discrimination laws again? Glad its the US. That place is heading down down.
Want to put up your wares for public consumption then you cant pick and choose.

Or do we want it like when businessess could put up signs saying "no colours".

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 

herculez09

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 1, 2009
9,230
11,771
Brunswick
AFL Club
West Coast
It's just a weird issue that some Christians have.

Pretty sure the Bible is more against the person choosing to perform acts of homosexuality than it is about rendering acts of service for homosexuals.

It seems like some are just choosing to extrapolate too much.
 

The Passenger

Mr. Mojo Risin'
Mar 25, 2003
30,755
17,628
Hasa Diga Eebowai
AFL Club
West Coast
Imo you shouldn't have to serve someone.

But own that decision your business has made and cop the backlash if you don't want to serve people because they are of a certain ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, sex or wherever.

People will call you out and if it means that much to you then cop it on the chin. Don't hide behind freedom of speechs expression or whatever bullshit excuse you're going to use.

On a business level it doesn't make sense to refuse work unless you are snowed under. Everyone's money is valued the same one you oup it in the bank.
 

Feerits Elf

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 28, 2008
8,314
13,966
Maribyrnong
AFL Club
St Kilda
So effectively it's unlawful to refuse the supply of goods to a person on certain grounds, but it's lawful to refuse the supply of services to a person on identical grounds?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

General Giant

Hall of Famer
Apr 12, 2012
32,526
24,370
AFL Club
GWS
Will be interesting to see the 1st attempt here in Oz.

Whats more important?
Discrimination under religious freedom or the Anti Discriminatuon law where everyone is equal?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 

ShanDog

Moderator
Aug 12, 2012
18,296
34,476
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
So effectively it's unlawful to refuse the supply of goods to a person on certain grounds, but it's lawful to refuse the supply of services to a person on identical grounds?
Not quite identical - the judge drew the line at whether something was specifically produced or commissioned versus an off-the-shelf item. Their interpretation of the first amendment was that a commissioned item would require the exercise of free speech and expression to create said item. Pretty flimsy reasoning on the face of it but I haven't read anything more than the article linked.
 

Feerits Elf

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 28, 2008
8,314
13,966
Maribyrnong
AFL Club
St Kilda
Not quite identical - the judge drew the line at whether something was specifically produced or commissioned versus an off-the-shelf item. Their interpretation of the first amendment was that a commissioned item would require the exercise of free speech and expression to create said item. Pretty flimsy reasoning on the face of it but I haven't read anything more than the article linked.
It's because the anti-discrimination law is a California law but the Constitutionally-protected right to free (artistic and creative) expression falls within the Federal jurisdiction.

Selling (or omitting to sell) a cake = commercial enterprise = unlawful discrimination under California law
Creating (or omitting to create) a cake = creative expression = Constitutionally-protected free speech under Federal law
 

Quadzilla

Brownlow Medallist
May 21, 2005
17,227
12,862
North Antarctica
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Power, Magpies, Swamprats, Whales
Why do we need this thread? Is it so bigots can express their views that gays are inferior?
So IF I was AGAINST same sex marriage I would be classed a bigot? Am I not allowed an opinion? HMMM ... NOW WHO IS DISCRIMANTING/JUDGING?
 

General Giant

Hall of Famer
Apr 12, 2012
32,526
24,370
AFL Club
GWS
So IF I was AGAINST same sex marriage I would be classed a bigot? Am I not allowed an opinion? HMMM ... NOW WHO IS DISCRIMANTING/JUDGING?
Actually yes as you think same sex couples are less than equal.

For instance, its like you are saying that it if you are against 1st Australians you shouldn't be called racist because its your opinion


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 

ShanDog

Moderator
Aug 12, 2012
18,296
34,476
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
So IF I was AGAINST same sex marriage I would be classed a bigot? Am I not allowed an opinion? HMMM ... NOW WHO IS DISCRIMANTING/JUDGING?
You're a bigot if you are intolerant of other people's opinions. That's the definition of the word.

You can have shit opinions (yes, opinions can be shit - being an opinion doesn't exclude it from being shitty) and not be a bigot. Most poeple struggle with that though.
 

james Dean

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 18, 2006
6,237
8,129
Otherside of the Tracks
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
PHX, NUFC, Pats
So IF I was AGAINST same sex marriage I would be classed a bigot? Am I not allowed an opinion? HMMM ... NOW WHO IS DISCRIMANTING/JUDGING?
You are allowed to not like gay people, be against gay marriage, have an opinion on anything you want.

Just know that having that opinion makes you a bigot, you have to live with it.
 

Quadzilla

Brownlow Medallist
May 21, 2005
17,227
12,862
North Antarctica
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Power, Magpies, Swamprats, Whales
Actually yes as you think same sex couples are less than equal.

For instance, its like you are saying that it if you are against 1st Australians you shouldn't be called racist because its your opinion


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
I'm against same sex marriage ... NOT the actual couples.
 
Last edited:

Quadzilla

Brownlow Medallist
May 21, 2005
17,227
12,862
North Antarctica
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Power, Magpies, Swamprats, Whales
You're a bigot if you are intolerant of other people's opinions. That's the definition of the word.

You can have shit opinions (yes, opinions can be shit - being an opinion doesn't exclude it from being shitty) and not be a bigot. Most poeple struggle with that though.
I'm being called a bigot as I'm against same sex marriage...that's my opinion.

Therefore you don't like my opinion yiure a bigot...yes?

If not ... your post make no sense
 

General Giant

Hall of Famer
Apr 12, 2012
32,526
24,370
AFL Club
GWS
I'm against same sex marriage ... NOT the actual couples
So you think they are less than hetrosexual couples. Not having the right to marry like hetro couples.

Sooo thats still discrimination. As they are performing a legal act.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 

Quadzilla

Brownlow Medallist
May 21, 2005
17,227
12,862
North Antarctica
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Power, Magpies, Swamprats, Whales
So you think they are less than hetrosexual couples. Not having the right to marry like hetro couples.

Sooo thats still discrimination. As they are performing a legal act.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
They can do what they like!

'MARRIAGE' is a man/woman IMO

Call it a civil union and let them have a ceremony and all benefits etc ... be fine

But as its been legally stamped they can do it ... true so I must not say they can't

I'm allowed to not like it ... aren't I?
 

Top Bottom